Cut Content Data?

[theevancat 277]

Before I start, I apologize if this is a dupe thread or anything. Searching has found no similar threads, so I felt free to go ahead with this one.

So who remembers railgun tank?

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/08/Arma3_screeenshot_PCGUS_01_exclusive.jpg (413 kB)

Or the Nemo?

See that dude in the front with that XM25?

http://gamingbolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ARMA-3.jpg (462 kB)

Anyways, everyone knows there's stuff that was shown in prerelease but cut from the game. I'm not here to bitch about it ("BI fix naow pls") and rage for them to put it in the game. Every game has cut content. It's the nature of development, especially with something as arduous as Arma 3's. No, I have a different solution, and it's quite simple. When BIS released the source data for Arma 2, it was probably one of the best things since sliced bread. So why not just release the cut content for the community in the same way?

If it wasn't finished, maybe the community can patch it up. Half-done and discarded before a deadline to be forgotten about in the bottom of a folder? Release what's done of it and I can guarantee you that there'll be working community addons featuring the assets within a few months (or even weeks.) As long as the stuff hasn't been tossed in the trash can and deleted permanently, the community can save it.

I went digging for information and came across a post from a developer, dating back to almost a year ago:

How to explain it? Something needs to be included into game first to be removed. And we are trying to include only assets deemed worthy by the mighty gods of QA into the game. Some assets were not deemed so and are lurking our office in desperate need to be finished. There are some issues that need to be addressed first before they may roam the outside world freely :icon_twisted:

Why not let the community address those issues? Especially if the assets aren't on the priority list to be addressed. If BI wants to go on a completely different direction, that's fine. More power to them. We're not going to be finishing their game for them. But there's this stuff that many people would like to see, so why not give it to them - even if it's unfinished?

Hell, maybe this won't even be necessary. Maybe BI will indeed finish them up and put them in the game. Then this would be moot.

I hope I'm making sense here, and I hope that people will agree with me. Maybe I'm not making a huge ass of myself in public. I desperately want to see this happen. However, I understand that there are many sides to this. Let's discuss.

[chortles 263]

Hell, maybe this won't even be necessary. Maybe BI will indeed finish them up and put them in the game. Then this would be moot.

This is pretty much the only other reason I can see other than "tossed in the trash can and deleted permanently", and A3's dev team tends to play their upcoming content/features cards real close to their chest until official announcement, insofar as why we haven't heard anything about these assets.

For perspective, the last time we had official word on the RotorLib FDM from Take On Helicopters in A3 was a week before the A3 alpha release... until the Helicopters DLC announcement over a year later.

[Greenfist 1863]

There has been a couple of discussions about this, especially one massive thread which I couldn't find at the moment. IIRC it had some good dev comments in it.

But there's this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?170617-ARMA-3-Dropped-out-features

[nimrod123 11]

This is pretty much the only other reason I can see other than "tossed in the trash can and deleted permanently", and A3's dev team tends to play their upcoming content/features cards real close to their chest until official announcement, insofar as why we haven't heard anything about these assets.

For perspective, the last time we had official word on the RotorLib FDM from Take On Helicopters in A3 was a week before the A3 alpha release... until the Helicopters DLC announcement over a year later.

they talked about rotorlib a couple of times, just no big announcements. they talked about the fairly massive performance hits it created, and how it went on the block to prevent feature creep issues

[zukov 483]

i hope in a return of the rail gun on CSAT faction

[kremator 1064]

Not going to happen as you can't copy/paste them ! /sarcasm off

[the_demongod 31]

I remember hearing that the F35 was only placed in the game as a placeholder/for testing/for photos (I'm okay with this actually, not a huge fan of the F-35). I am quite curious what is happening with the V-22 Osprey though, I haven't heard anything about it and I'm sort of hoping we'll get it for BLUFOR in the Helicopters DLC.

I'm totally fine with Railguns and such coming into the game (as long as we still have the standard variants), but I know many people won't be :P.

At least give us that sweet LAV-mounted mortar, even without the railgun; it looks cool as hell.

[zukov 483]

I'm totally fine with Railguns and such coming into the game (as long as we still have the standard variants), but I know many people won't be :P.

yes they prefer to play at altis life hehehehehe (i had forgotten how many stuff was cutted)

[theevancat 277]

I'm totally fine with Railguns and such coming into the game (as long as we still have the standard variants), but I know many people won't be :P.

And I think that might be why they cut some of the stuff. If they made the design decision not to include railguns, I'm not going to bitch at them to put them back. That's their choice. However, maybe they could release what they have of it if they don't have any plans so that some unofficial stuff could be made.

I know there are plenty of unofficial cut content mods for other games. Fallout and Skyrim come into mind particularly.

[blackpixxel 53]

The railgun-tank could be also used for the common "steal/destroy the prototype" missions. I would really have this one and the mortar Marshal in game.

[roshnak 41]

I remember hearing that the F35 was only placed in the game as a placeholder/for testing/for photos (I'm okay with this actually, not a huge fan of the F-35). I am quite curious what is happening with the V-22 Osprey though, I haven't heard anything about it and I'm sort of hoping we'll get it for BLUFOR in the Helicopters DLC.

If it's true that the F-35 was only being used as a placeholder (and we have good reason to believe that was the case), I can't think of any reason to believe that the same wasn't true of the Osprey. I wouldn't count on seeing it in an official release.

[odie0351 67]

Not going to happen as you can't copy/paste them ! /sarcasm off

BAHAHAHAHAHA! It's funny 'cause its true:o Don't even get me started on that "issue".

As far as these cut items go I would've loved to have seen every one of them mentioned so far in game, even the F-35 placeholder. Had they have made it in game it probably wouldn't have been a bad idea to snub the rail gun tank from the campaign for safe measure, but then again I wouldn't have minded either way.

[instagoat 133]

XM-25 was likely removed because there is no way to simulate it properly without running a huge stack of scripts (TBOC M-25 as an example:

). The Railguns were removed because of community complaints and changes to the story. The tank design would need to be changed, because an electric gun needs some specialized equipment that is not represented on the normal model.

It would also need a dedicated damage model to simulate electrical fires, exploding capacitors and the associated electrical arcing. If a railgun tank explodes, it's basically the same as a high-voltage transformer in a power distribution station burning up. There are videos on youtube of this, and it is quite dramatic.

[roshnak 41]

XM-25 was likely removed because there is no way to simulate it properly without running a huge stack of scripts (TBOC M-25 as an example:

).

That never really stopped BIS from adding other weapon systems that should have advanced capabilities (javelins, titan launchers, etc.). They just don't give them those features. This arguably applies to the damage model issues or the railgun tank as well.

[zukov 483]

XM-25 was likely removed because there is no way to simulate it properly without running a huge stack of scripts (TBOC M-25 as an example:

). The Railguns were removed because of community complaints and changes to the story. The tank design would need to be changed, because an electric gun needs some specialized equipment that is not represented on the normal model.

It would also need a dedicated damage model to simulate electrical fires, exploding capacitors and the associated electrical arcing. If a railgun tank explodes, it's basically the same as a high-voltage transformer in a power distribution station burning up. There are videos on youtube of this, and it is quite dramatic.

if they have this beauty......

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/arma3_facebook_12_4.jpg (308 kB)

maybe a "cut content DLC" isn't so bad i prefer this than a the upcoming "marksman heli DLC"

and honestly the tank railgun is a lot better than the orrible t100 now in game

[somesangheili 111]

call me weird, but the thing i would want the most from the cut content is the extra civilian clothing, as seen in this video.

it would add way more variety to the civvies.

[theevancat 277]

if they have this beauty......

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/arma3_facebook_12_4.jpg (308 kB)

maybe a "cut content DLC" isn't so bad i prefer this than a the upcoming "marksman heli DLC"

and honestly the tank railgun is a lot better than the orrible t100 now in game

I'm not thinking of a DLC. It'd be a data package released unbinarized so that modders could put them in game is BI doesn't want to (like the design decision that led to railgun tank's cancelation.)

Also, this isn't really a discussion about the assets themselves, but the aforementioned suggestion.